August 31, 2009

Word Study on Repentance

Let me (Melinda) clarify the point Greg tried to make in the video blog yesterday: "Repentance Has Nothing to Do with Sin." The title was an overstatement meant to make a point, but instead led to misunderstanding.

Greg did not say or mean to imply that repentance is not necessary for salvation, as some have taken his meaning. His point was to clarify how the New Testament uses the word "repent," not the full theology and nature of repentance. That's what word studies do so we've changed the title to that more apt description.

The word "repent" is not a synonym for "repent from sin," which seems to be a common use of the word among Evangelicals. The word study demonstrates that "repent" in the New Testament means only "change of mind," and the context indicates whether it's a change of mind from something or a change of mind to something, and what that something is.

The habit we sometimes get into is that we don't use Biblical words in their accurate Biblical sense. So when we read the word in the Bible the tendency is to read the non-biblical meaning into the text, thus getting a false understanding of the passage. It's important to check our assumptions by studying words in their Biblical sense.

The point was that the word "repentance" itself has nothing to do with sin. It's the word used in context that might have to do with sin - or several other objects that we must change our mind from or change our mind to. We need to let the text tell us how to change our minds instead of reading meaning into the text.

The way the word study shows that "repent" is used in the New Testament indicates that the Gospel is not only an offer to repent from sin, but also to repent to God, that is change our minds to God. Repentance from sin is part of what the New Testament tell us to do, but not the whole message. Yet if we start with a misunderstanding of what "repent" means, we can easily miss the full meaning of the text.

From Greg:

A great number of people responding misunderstood my point, it was clear, and in hindsight I would state my case differently. The confusion, then, was partly my fault. Even when properly understood, though, my point will be controversial for some.

Therefore, we've decided to pull the video. I have no interest in causing unnecessary ill will, or possibly being perceived by some as being needlessly iconoclastic.

"Repentance" is recognition of and confessing your iniquitous heart and conduct, mourning for your separation from God. It is a step toward Him, not the only step. Repentance is a prep of the heart for that turning. First, though, is that recognition of one's iniquity.

I could be wrong, but I think Greg was correcting the faulty notion that one must repent before accepting Christ. His assessment of the Bible (which I agree with) seems to be that repentance comes after faith in Christ. Criticizing Calvanism or the original languages are distractions from the core issue.

Repentance comes after recognition and mourning. Turning to Him comes after that.

In other words, first, we must look into the mirror of the Law to see our condition before God. When we recognize ourselves in that mirror, we mourn. Then, contrition, and, then, it is then that we seek Him, through Christ, to save us.

(Psa 34:18) The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

(Psa 51:17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

(Isa 57:15) For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

(Isa 66:2) For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

One other thing, about a "repentance word study"; a word's meaning has everything to do with usage and context. For this speaker to have missed the usage of the greek term in relation to what (sin) is turned from AND to whom (God) one turns is astonishing to me.

He says that the word, "repentance," appears 23 times in the New American Standard, and that in no case does the word, "repentance," nor, apparently, the act of repentance, have anything to do with sin. That, of course, is absurd.

The focus of the entire Word of God is God Reconciliation with Man. Repentance is one of the conditions.

Then, of course, there's the discussion whether his version IS the Word of God.

Although metanoias (a turning or changing) certainly doesn't HAVE to do with sin, and it certainly INCLUDES a change of mind toward God, but when I look over the 22 times it occurs (in the greek), it certainly MUST also include a turning from sin. It is a "both/and". Wrapped up in the the turning from sin is the fact that we are turning our lives, minds and our hearts TO CHRIST!

I suppose the learning for me is that in our modern church parlance we have a tendency to LIMIT our use of the word "repentance" to reference sin, and not so much a change of heart and mind about God, etc. (although I certainly understand the misled mind in itself is sin...)

I think some of you are misunderstanding Greg. Or maybe I am. Greg isn't saying that sin isn't the thing we are to repent from in many contexts. He's saying that sin isn't part of the definition of repentance. A person can repent of sin, of course, but sin isn't the only thing one can repent of.

This paragraph from tur8in's blog perfectly captures what I took Greg to be saying:

"Mr. Koukl makes hay of the fact that the Greek word for repentance, μετανοέω (metanoeō), does not necessarily have to do with sin. That's absolutely true: it means a change of mind. The word itself doesn't even necessarily have to do with God. Like the English word "turn" it can be applied to various things. Thus, we sometimes see it used in Scripture of things other than turning to God (God even anthropomorphically describes himself as repenting from some thing he would otherwise have done)."

I think tur8infan as well as some of you mistook Greg to be saying repentence never involves sin, when what he actually meant is that it's not part of the definition of repentance.

Yes, but Greg also applied "it has nothing necessarily to do with sin" in an odd way. He left out the both/and that Kristian mentioned.

He wanted to say this: Repentance involves our attitude toward God, and God doesn't require us to transform ourselves into non-sinners before we come to him. And that's a good point. Repenting from sin toward God doesn't mean accomplishing the transformation.

But he's trying to show it by saying that "repent and believe" has nothing to do with sin. And that's where he seems to go off into the woods a bit. Because even where the Bible doesn't say "repent from sin", repentance is typically talked about as "calling sinners to repentance". Sin is in view, even if it's not stated as the object.

"...just like if i said the word stop, stop has nothing to do with sin, if i said stop sinning, the phrase would deal with sin but the word stop stop just means stop... μετανοέω means to have a change of mind. one needs to supply the object before one knows what the change of mind is about."

This sounds fine, BUT then he goes on to say that he also did a word study of "repent" and it ~only~ dealt with sin 7 times, and all but two of those are in the book of Revelation.

The point he claims to be making is that when repent or repentance is used in the NT, that it is not referring to "turning from sin".

The problem is, and what Tur8infan has pointed out, is that in nearly every case in the NT, both repentance and repent are used in conjunction with sin or sinful activity AND turning to God.

Greg states: "There is no biblical requirement for turning from sin before you receive Christ, it's not there."

The problem lies in the languge here being used. The traditional understanding of regeneration requires ~nothing~ but the hearing of the Gospel for one to be regenerated, from which faith is the result. But the immediate result thereof is a repentance from sin and turning to God. One cannot pledge allegiance to the Sovereign God without denying sin, their previous God simultaneously.

Koukl continues: "In fact some of the time repentance is used to turn away from good works, which the new testament calls dead works... we're to have a change of mind about that, a turning from dead works"

The problem here is that the "dead works" are works done outside of faith and are therefore... sin. Thus dead works = sin, so what is it one is repenting of? Sin.

Are dead works something one has to repent of before they "receive Christ"? If so, how can it be said that one does not have to turn from ~sin~ before "receiving" Christ?

Koukl states: "Sometimes the object is very clear, repentance towards God and faith in Jesus."

Can someone provide me a Scripture reference wherein this form of repentance is used? I can't find one.

Finally he says: "When Jesus called for repentance... they were calling for a change of mind, the people had wrong ideas about God, the writers, the speakers were calling for people to change their view."

This is simply not the case. Following his 'word study' will prove this out.

Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Equating "dead works" with sin doesn't make sense to me. God condemns me (and everyone) for my (our) sin. By your logic ("dead works" = sin) we would be in condemnation for helping little old ladies across the street. I don't see the Bible ever teaching that. We are in condemnation for doing "BAD STUFF" not "GOOD STUFF". Therefore unless someone is going to argue that "dead works" means "BAD STUFF", in at least one case (presumably Heb 6:1) Koukl is correct that the word for repentance is not used in reference to sin (the BAD STUFF we do). Rather the passage is calling for the reader/hearer to repent from their misunderstanding that doing "good works" will do anything to bring them eternal life. If we have the misunderstanding that helping little old ladies across the street will bring us eternal life, we need to repent from our misunderstanding, not stop helping them across the street.

Micah meant that it's sin in the sense that every action that's not proceeding from faith is in. (I think the idea is that when we're not submitted to God, we're sinning in everything we do. You're right--it's not that we'll repent from the action, but rather from the attitude behind the action.)

"By your logic ("dead works" = sin) we would be in condemnation for helping little old ladies across the street."

If you're of the opinion that God looks favorably upon your helping old ladies across the street OUTSIDE of Christ (that is, as a non-believer) than yes, it is a sin. As the prophet tells us, "all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags."

See? This is the trouble we have when there are so many variations, versions, translations, and we don't know which one is the Word of God for real. Every version, every translation and every variation claims to be the Word of God, and every person who has his own version, his own variation and his own translation says HE has the Word of God, even though every version and every translation and every variation says it differently. The Devil loves this!

There again it's more the problem with sin than with the translation. If people were more concerned with finding the heart and mind of God, He would 'lead them into all truth' as promised.

Recently, I realized God left flaws in each translation so that one wouldn't be exalted above another, but our reliance would be on Him.

:::I agree with that. Many translations, versions and variations give people the confidence to lean on their own understanding, or somebody else's understanding.:::

And that's the real danger. On our own, we don't do so well... the forbidden fruit, Gibeonites, Barabbas... And why the example of the Bereans is so commendable for searching Scripture daily, etc. Psalm 25:9 (key word here is humble)

If people were more concerned with finding the heart and mind of God, He would 'lead them into all truth' as promised. -- Posted by: Greg | September 02, 2009 at 01:16 AM

In which version, or translation, or variation, it is the heart and mind of God? Which one of them matches the Word of God? After all, He says that He is the ONLY Way to the Father. Which one? Is, for instance, NIV the one, or should we look for another?

Recently, I realized God left flaws in each translation... -- Posted by: Greg | September 02, 2009 at 01:16 AM

WHAT???

Then how to we know what the Truth is?

... so that one wouldn't be exalted above another, but our reliance would be on Him. -- Posted by: Greg | September 02, 2009 at 01:16 AM

We rely on Him through His Word. It is through Him, Christ.

The question: Which is THE Word? I say it's KJV. KJV is the Word of God -- the Christ -- preserved in English. Now, you're not gonna agree. There's the problem.

Ask Him! I asked the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to show me His truth and He did! My first Bible was KJV, I've also used NIV, NASB and NKJV. My reliance isn't on a translation but on the living God. As it's written 'the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life' 2 Corinthians 3:6

Mr. Incredible, you've brought up the KJV only controversy a few times now on a few separate blog posts. I just want to let you know (and everyone) that we're pretty strict about not allowing people to come in with an agenda to discuss a certain topic and turn all the posts to that topic. The purpose of this policy is to keep people discussing the myriad of topics we're putting out there on our blog and to keep many people involved in the different topics. If we didn't enforce this rule, we would have a couple people setting the agenda every day for everyone else commenting, and that's not fair to them or to us. As long as you're commenting on the topic, you'll be fine, but if you continue to bring up the KJV debate, we'll have to remove you from the blog for the sake of the other people participating.

No worries about everything that's happened so far because you had no way to know. (Normally I would email you first about this instead of posting it, but your email address is incorrect, and my note bounced back.) Thanks for understanding.

:::Melinda took it down because she had copied and pasted the whole thing onto this post, so it was redundant.:::

Except the comments following it weren't. By combining the two it ruined the continuity of the ongoing debate. Greg could've added his comments as he did, remove the video and leave the whole intact so everyone could see/follow along. Like to video itself, the response to it (clarification, consolidation) wasn't thought through very well.

Which brings me to his clarification for removing it. Had his argument/observation been sound/accurate, why remove it? Jesus didn't back down from the controversial perception conveyed through teaching about eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood... John 6:53 Many complained, many left John 6:60-66 but He didn't back down because it sounded controversial, was hard to understand... He stood firm because it was the truth.

So, ultimately it tells me that Greg wasn't completely confident in his own 'discovery'.

So we change the title and pull the video. How about clarifying your video in your own words. Give more detail and explain what you meant! Why change the name and pull the video? How does that clarify anything? And why did Malinda respond? When it is something as important and confusing as this, Greg should be the one explaining and defending his position. I know Greg did respond with a couple of words, but this deserves a much more detailed explanation. It comes off as a duck and run situation, and I expect more from Greg and STR.

"From Greg:

A great number of people responding misunderstood my point, it was clear, and in hindsight I would state my case differently. The confusion, then, was partly my fault. Even when properly understood, though, my point will be controversial for some.

Therefore, we've decided to pull the video. I have no interest in causing unnecessary ill will, or possibly being perceived by some as being needlessly iconoclastic."

Don't pull the video from your blog, just clarify! Give an in-depth explanation!! A lot of us still don't understand your point. Knowing Greg, he is probably correct, but please correct, justify and explain it!